These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10212732)
1. A screening test of auditory comprehension for individuals with severe physical disability (PACST). Beaumont JG; Marjoribanks J; Flury S; Lintern T Br J Clin Psychol; 1999 Mar; 38(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 10212732 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing auditory comprehension in the context of severe physical disability: the PACST. Beaumont JG; Marjoribanks J; Flury S; Lintern T Brain Inj; 1999 Feb; 13(2):99-112. PubMed ID: 10079955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension. Best V; Keidser G; Buchholz JM; Freeston K Int J Audiol; 2016; 55(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 26158403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The effects of sophistication on three threshold tests for subjects with simulated hearing loss. Martin FN; Shipp DB Ear Hear; 1982; 3(1):34-6. PubMed ID: 7060844 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Hearing disability measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale in clinically normal-hearing and hearing-impaired middle-aged persons, and disability screening by means of a reduced SSQ (the SSQ5). Demeester K; Topsakal V; Hendrickx JJ; Fransen E; van Laer L; Van Camp G; Van de Heyning P; van Wieringen A Ear Hear; 2012; 33(5):615-6. PubMed ID: 22568994 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Development of the A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech. Heeren W; Coene M; Vaerenberg B; Avram A; Cardinaletti A; del Bo L; Pascu A; Volpato F; Govaerts PJ Cochlear Implants Int; 2012 Nov; 13(4):206-19. PubMed ID: 22449360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [The Freiburg monosyllabic test put to the test]. Baljić I; Hoppe U HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):538-9. PubMed ID: 27455987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Task Difficulty Makes 'No' Response Different From 'Yes' Response in Detection of Fragmented Object Contours. Taniguchi K; Kuraguchi K; Konishi Y Perception; 2018 Sep; 47(9):943-965. PubMed ID: 30012044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing normal hearing and hearing-impaired subject's performance on the Northwestern Auditory Test Number 6, California Consonant Test, and Pascoe's High-Frequency Word Test. Maroonroge S; Diefendorf AO Ear Hear; 1984; 5(6):356-60. PubMed ID: 6510582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Speech reception thresholds in noise and self-reported hearing disability in a general adult population. Smits C; Kramer SE; Houtgast T Ear Hear; 2006 Oct; 27(5):538-49. PubMed ID: 16957503 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Determining perceived sound quality in a simulated hearing aid using the international speech test signal. Arehart KH; Kates JM; Anderson MC; Moats P Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):533-5. PubMed ID: 21325947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [The Freiburg monosyllable word test in postoperative cochlear implant diagnostics]. Hey M; Brademann G; Ambrosch P HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):601-7. PubMed ID: 27393292 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. Bilger RC; Nuetzel JM; Rabinowitz WM; Rzeczkowski C J Speech Hear Res; 1984 Mar; 27(1):32-48. PubMed ID: 6717005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Detection of inactivity of the auditory system in the beginning stage with the Freiburg masked speech test]. Dieroff HG; Meissner W HNO; 1994 Jan; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 8150675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Test-retest reliability of the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test]. Winkler A; Holube I HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):564-71. PubMed ID: 27286728 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Test-retest reliability of a distinctive feature difference test for hearing aid evaluation. Feeney MP; Franks JR Ear Hear; 1982; 3(2):59-65. PubMed ID: 7075870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]